I'm sure this isn't the most popular way to look at it, but let me see if I've got this straight...
She was found guilty, and judging by the publically available information I have to believe she is... the only disputed issue seems to be the award... and unless my math's off the RIAA was offering to settle for less than the reduced judgement the court was still holding as valid.
And she siad no? What, on principle? "I shouldn't have to pay any amount, even if it's less than the court-reduced amount, even though I did violate the law"?
I don't see what the RIAA hopes to accomplish by pushing this, but just as much I don't see what she thinks she stands to gain. Am I losing it, or am I correct in thinking that at this point if they don't reach a settlement she has to pay what the court ordered?
Hmm... I can't find a single definition of "cult" that's more applicable to communism than to capitalism, but I suppose if you want to apply any and every label you perceive as negative to any and every belief you perceive as negative that's your prerogative.
Ignoring the mischaracterization of glass that you're trying to start a debate about, the answer to your question is: No, becuase mirrors are not made of glass.
Bathroom mirrors have a protective layer of glass, but the reflective layer is silver. At best that would be "partially liquid" if we pretend that glass is a liquid. Many mirrors do not have such a protective layer, though; the mirror I use for backpacking is simply a thin metal sheet. Mirrors for lab optics typically don't include a glass layer because it would serve no purpose and would interfere with the mirror's intended use.
The defining element of a mirror is the reflective part, which is made of metal and is usually solid.
I guess I'm not seeing how the relationship between temperature and pressure in a gas is to be applied to liquid mirrors.
In any case, I think there are likely to be problems with freezing the mirror. Do most metals naturally freeze to a polished surface? Might the shape deform significantly during the freezing process, so that even if it remains "shiny" enough it still doesn't suit the application? Won't the act of spinning the liquid interfere with the process of freezing it?
That might not solve all the problems, though. If the device is company-provided, then they may still have a claim to data it physically captures (contact lists, call/message history, etc.) even though the device was interacting with an unrelated network under an unrelated contract some of the time.
I suppose if your employer gave you the option that they'd just provide a SIM card and you could put it in a device of your choosing (which could be one of the dual-SIM devices others have pointed out), then that might be a solution.
Ok, so the company has an asset. If they let you, you can use it, and there is no incremental cost to them. BUT, it's still up to them (1) whether to let you use it, and (2) if so, under what terms. Your employer has agreed to let you use it, so that puts (1) out of the way; but what about (2)? If they haven't specifically agreed otherwise, the terms include "you are making information like your call history available to us whether you realize it or not", because that's what naturally happens when you borrow someone's phone.
Would it be nice if everyone donated the excess utility of their private resources to someone else who can use them, no strings attached? I suppose so. Very few people do it, though.
You don't think there are civil penalties for beating someone up? Might want to fact-check that one, chief.
Spamhaus was acting in America regardless of where their offices are. They are subject to U.S. law, just as Google is subject to Chinese law if/when they operate in China (to cite just one recent example of many).
I support anti-spam efforts, but I support the rule of law more. So:
Complaining about how the court handled the case shows you're ignoring one key fact: Spamhaus chose not to appear in court, and by doing so tied the court's hands. Bottom line, although you might want to evaluate this on the assumption that e360 really was spamming, when only one party shows up, the court must take that party's story at face value and cannot make assumptions about whether that party might really be telling half-truths.
Spamhaus made a choice to say "we don't care about IL court"; well, that has benefits and costs. They get the benefits (don't have to bother with the expense of the trial), so it's a pretty crappy attitude to complain that they also must bear the costs (the case is evaluated not on its merits as would be found at trial, but on the basis of e360's side of the story). Looking at it from the perspective the court has to take, then:
I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of the fact that Spamhaus is a voluntary service. I suppose their liability would be greater if they somehow blocked traffic between two parties without having any relationship with either party; but just because the recipient chose to use their service doesn't necessarily releive them of liability for the consequences of their service being used. If I hire a security guard and he beats up a passer-by, does he escape liability because I chose to hire him? (And again, I'm sure you wish to point out the differences you perceive between e360 and an innocent passer-by, but the court cannot consider those assumptions since Spamhaus didn't show up in court to argue them.)
Additionally, it may be that Spamhaus has its own resolution procedure for those who claim they aren't spamming, but a private company's policies cannot trump civil law. It might be polite to try their procedure first, but it is not mandatory.
And finally, what does the fact that other RBL's have behaved worse have to do with anything? "Yeah, Bob punched someone in the face, but Bill over here beat people with lead pipes! Why should we worry about Bob?"
Those arguments might not hold up if all the facts were revealed; in which case it's too bad Spamhaus opted not to pursue the trial and get those facts on the record.
Since you say you avoid the game, I'm not sure your vote on what the viewer's experience should be counts for anything.
In any event, the problem isn't that they're making too much noise; the problem is that it's a really obnoxious noise that most of us would rather not hear as we're watching the game. You say it "isn't going to change anything" as if we were speculating about the future; we're not. We're reacting to what is in fact being broadcast, and it does make a difference.
"It's a bit disingenuous to say we're going to embrace your culture by letting you host the cup, but do you mind awfully not playing those nasty vuvuzelas?"
I think you're making a lot of senseless assumptions there, but I'll play along: Who said anything about asking them not to play the vuvuzelas? The point is the sound can be filtered out of the broadcast, so they can enjoy the game in the manner of their culture and we can enjoy the game without hearing someting that detracts from our enjoyment of the game.
If that seems like insufficent embracing of their culture to you, too bad. I'm not sure why you think watching a soccer tournament in South Affrica is somehow a commitment to the South Affrican culture. Do we have to eat South Affrican food as we watch the game, too? South Affrica is getting the same thing out of hosting the games as every other host country; and yes, that includes an increased awareness of their culture and history.
1) Just because MAD is not applicable to today's circumstances, does not make it a naive theory. It did exactly its job in the circumstances for which it was created.
2) If you write off Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea as "stupid", then you are a fool. Yes, their motivations differ from yours - enough so that you clearly do not understand them. However, you're claim that they're suicidal needs some support.
When a group and/or point of view is so irrefutably evil, report the facts as they are and everyone observing the facts will see that they are evil. If you instead take the road you're advocating, and insist that all anyone get to see about them is your emotional reaction, then you're insisting that everyone else "take your word for it" that they are evil. That will only breed sympathy for them.
There is a difference between neutral reporting and neutral action. Civilization depends on seeing that distinction, so it's a shame people like you don't.
I'm not convinced that you need someone who doesn't have a personal position on a topic. It's true that some people have a problem putting their bias aside to write an impartial article, but this is not true of everyone. The people most likely to abuse that situation by suppressing the opposing view, are the ones who fear the opposing view because when you get right down to it they aren't so secure in their own view.
I'm also not convinced that you need an expert on a topic to evaluate which perspectives are worthy of inclusion. An encyclopeida is a secondary source; you always have to know who's claiming this-or-that before you can include it. So all you need is someone who can rate the significance of the source. Do I have to be an expert on American politics to know that the official Republican and Democratic positions on an issue are more significant than a view that I can only find cited by Bob at the corner bar? Not really.
What makes you think you have to choose one of those two? Or, to put it differently, what part of "neutral" don't you understand?
If I take your account at face value (not being familiar with the incident; would perhaps be nice of you to provide a link, but I know that's asking a lot around here), then here would be some neutral facts:
- The Taliban did (something), killing a 7-year-old boy - The Taliban say the boy was spying and that they punished him - Critics of the Taliban say that the punishment was unjust and constitutes an act of murder
Perhaps there are some other facts, such as evidence supporting or refuting each side's claims. Perhaps there aren't. But frankly, if that's your example of a "hard" problem for being neutral, then I'd have to conclude there's no problem and you just don't know what neutral sounds like.
And for every disgruntled consumer that won't buy their system because it carries DRM, would you care to take a guess at how many non-disgruntled consumers are pressed into playing by Sony's rules?
I don't know the number, but I'm willing to wager it's a lot higher than you'd like it to be.
That hardly seems applicable since they're predicting something contrary to the normal cycle.
My knowledge of solar "weather" is too limited to evaluate the reasoning behind this claim - and from what you wrote here, I think yours is, too. I guess the question is: is NASA's?
Ooooookay, let's start by exploring just waht a "foundation" is. The applicable definitions would be:
a : funds given for the permanent support of an institution : endowment; b : an organization or institution established by endowment with provision for future maintenance
(emphasis added)
In other words, a foudnation is precisely an organization that has an endowment of seed money, invests that money, and uses income from such investment to do some sort of work (in this case, charitable work) perpetually. Typically some of the investment income is reinvested in the foundation (rather than 100% of the income going to do work), as this helps ensure perpetual operation and can even cause the foundation's strength to increase over time.
An organization that doesn't invest, but rather does its work directly with the money it takes in from donors or other revenue streams, is not a foundation.
So pointing out that the foundation invests in profitable things and therefoer concluding that it's a tax scam is entirely misguided. If you want to distinguish a charitable foundation from a tax scam, look for an outbound revenue stream into the founders' pockets. If you have evidence of that, then there's something to talk about.
Your first link represents a dillema that every successful investor with a diverse portfolio has to deal with. Your second and fourth links only show that they are good stewards of their seed money. Your third link is such trivially emotional crap that it barely deserves comment.
I'm glad we agree that it's "obvious" you were lying when you said we'd been "doing this for the better part of a century". It's a shame you've decided to try to blame me for being the one to point out you were lying, and to deflect attention to the entirely irrelevant issue of why we're trying more difficult drilling operations.
You think there's never been a spill like this one? Guess that shows how effective media propaganda really is. Go educate yourself.
So... what? Because BP didn't want to lose oil, that means the disaster can't possibly be their fault? You're making some awfully generous assumptions. (And also, you're ignoring that oil companies routinely lose more oil each year than the Deepwater Horizon event is costing them.)
Legal definitions notwithstanding, corporations are not individuals. They do not have a unified will. They do not always act in their own bottom-line interest, because the interests of the decision-makers are not always aligned with the corporation's interests. Even if a corporation were an individual with a single will, you could not assume that they would never weigh the costs, risks, and benefits in a socially responsible manner. Nor could you assume that they would always be correct in their assessments of costs and risks.
The term "evil corporation" is a bit extreme, but then again it was those defending BP who introduced that term into the conversation, not those blaming BP. In any event, the problem isn't that corporations are "evil"; the problem is that the corporate system allows decision-making without regard to moral responsibility by shielding decision-makers from liability; and that, sure enough, fits any rational definition of evil that can ever be attributed to man.
Ok, when you say "we've been doing this for the better part of a cenury", define "doing this". Not all oil operations are equally risky, and I'd like to see a citation to back the claim that we've done deepwater drilling for the better part of a century.
Maybe more importantly, what do you mean "this has never happened before"? There have been many oil spills. Including from blown oil wells. Including in the Gulf of Mexico (1979). Here's a list of a few of them. If that's not enough, if you read the links from the submission you'll see that being neck deep in oil is pretty much the norm for Nigeria.
Oh, and when a company makes a decision to remove a safety mechanism and then suffers exactly the kind of failure that mechanism is meant to prevent, you can't file that under "things go wrong, period". BP took a risk (for reasons unclear - but if you'd like to bet against me, my belief is it had to do with someone's bonus) that they had no right to take; this is, in fact, the "evil corporation's" fault. (And no, the fact that the well might, maybe, eventually have blown out even with the safety fluid in place does not change the fact that it's BP's fault. BP could make that argument if they hadn't removed the drilling fluid.)
A speaker or a display work by putting into your environment something that your ears or eyes (respectively) will respond to. This is relatively easy because what your eyes and ears respond to are relatively simple energy waves. I don't think it's likely that an analogous approach will ever be practical for smell because the real-world thing your nose reacts to is understood to be much more complex.
However, another approach might work - bypass the nose and stimulate nerves directly to make the brain "think" it smells what you want it to smell.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure this isn't the most popular way to look at it, but let me see if I've got this straight...
She was found guilty, and judging by the publically available information I have to believe she is... the only disputed issue seems to be the award... and unless my math's off the RIAA was offering to settle for less than the reduced judgement the court was still holding as valid.
And she siad no? What, on principle? "I shouldn't have to pay any amount, even if it's less than the court-reduced amount, even though I did violate the law"?
I don't see what the RIAA hopes to accomplish by pushing this, but just as much I don't see what she thinks she stands to gain. Am I losing it, or am I correct in thinking that at this point if they don't reach a settlement she has to pay what the court ordered?
Hmm... I can't find a single definition of "cult" that's more applicable to communism than to capitalism, but I suppose if you want to apply any and every label you perceive as negative to any and every belief you perceive as negative that's your prerogative.
Perhaps. But either you want people informed, or you don't.
Or are you one of those who thinks that "informed" means "given the information that supports my particular agenda"?
Ignoring the mischaracterization of glass that you're trying to start a debate about, the answer to your question is: No, becuase mirrors are not made of glass.
Bathroom mirrors have a protective layer of glass, but the reflective layer is silver. At best that would be "partially liquid" if we pretend that glass is a liquid. Many mirrors do not have such a protective layer, though; the mirror I use for backpacking is simply a thin metal sheet. Mirrors for lab optics typically don't include a glass layer because it would serve no purpose and would interfere with the mirror's intended use.
The defining element of a mirror is the reflective part, which is made of metal and is usually solid.
I guess I'm not seeing how the relationship between temperature and pressure in a gas is to be applied to liquid mirrors.
In any case, I think there are likely to be problems with freezing the mirror. Do most metals naturally freeze to a polished surface? Might the shape deform significantly during the freezing process, so that even if it remains "shiny" enough it still doesn't suit the application? Won't the act of spinning the liquid interfere with the process of freezing it?
That might not solve all the problems, though. If the device is company-provided, then they may still have a claim to data it physically captures (contact lists, call/message history, etc.) even though the device was interacting with an unrelated network under an unrelated contract some of the time.
I suppose if your employer gave you the option that they'd just provide a SIM card and you could put it in a device of your choosing (which could be one of the dual-SIM devices others have pointed out), then that might be a solution.
Ok, so the company has an asset. If they let you, you can use it, and there is no incremental cost to them. BUT, it's still up to them (1) whether to let you use it, and (2) if so, under what terms. Your employer has agreed to let you use it, so that puts (1) out of the way; but what about (2)? If they haven't specifically agreed otherwise, the terms include "you are making information like your call history available to us whether you realize it or not", because that's what naturally happens when you borrow someone's phone.
Would it be nice if everyone donated the excess utility of their private resources to someone else who can use them, no strings attached? I suppose so. Very few people do it, though.
Try to navigate your way through a lawsuit without printed documents. Good luck to you.
I would probably agree, if it weren't the opposite of what he said.
If an event is present "all the time", and "99.99%" of the time it is a "false alarm", then it isn't an indicator at all.
You don't think there are civil penalties for beating someone up? Might want to fact-check that one, chief.
Spamhaus was acting in America regardless of where their offices are. They are subject to U.S. law, just as Google is subject to Chinese law if/when they operate in China (to cite just one recent example of many).
I support anti-spam efforts, but I support the rule of law more. So:
Complaining about how the court handled the case shows you're ignoring one key fact: Spamhaus chose not to appear in court, and by doing so tied the court's hands. Bottom line, although you might want to evaluate this on the assumption that e360 really was spamming, when only one party shows up, the court must take that party's story at face value and cannot make assumptions about whether that party might really be telling half-truths.
Spamhaus made a choice to say "we don't care about IL court"; well, that has benefits and costs. They get the benefits (don't have to bother with the expense of the trial), so it's a pretty crappy attitude to complain that they also must bear the costs (the case is evaluated not on its merits as would be found at trial, but on the basis of e360's side of the story). Looking at it from the perspective the court has to take, then:
I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of the fact that Spamhaus is a voluntary service. I suppose their liability would be greater if they somehow blocked traffic between two parties without having any relationship with either party; but just because the recipient chose to use their service doesn't necessarily releive them of liability for the consequences of their service being used. If I hire a security guard and he beats up a passer-by, does he escape liability because I chose to hire him? (And again, I'm sure you wish to point out the differences you perceive between e360 and an innocent passer-by, but the court cannot consider those assumptions since Spamhaus didn't show up in court to argue them.)
Additionally, it may be that Spamhaus has its own resolution procedure for those who claim they aren't spamming, but a private company's policies cannot trump civil law. It might be polite to try their procedure first, but it is not mandatory.
And finally, what does the fact that other RBL's have behaved worse have to do with anything? "Yeah, Bob punched someone in the face, but Bill over here beat people with lead pipes! Why should we worry about Bob?"
Those arguments might not hold up if all the facts were revealed; in which case it's too bad Spamhaus opted not to pursue the trial and get those facts on the record.
Since you say you avoid the game, I'm not sure your vote on what the viewer's experience should be counts for anything.
In any event, the problem isn't that they're making too much noise; the problem is that it's a really obnoxious noise that most of us would rather not hear as we're watching the game. You say it "isn't going to change anything" as if we were speculating about the future; we're not. We're reacting to what is in fact being broadcast, and it does make a difference.
"It's a bit disingenuous to say we're going to embrace your culture by letting you host the cup, but do you mind awfully not playing those nasty vuvuzelas?"
I think you're making a lot of senseless assumptions there, but I'll play along: Who said anything about asking them not to play the vuvuzelas? The point is the sound can be filtered out of the broadcast, so they can enjoy the game in the manner of their culture and we can enjoy the game without hearing someting that detracts from our enjoyment of the game.
If that seems like insufficent embracing of their culture to you, too bad. I'm not sure why you think watching a soccer tournament in South Affrica is somehow a commitment to the South Affrican culture. Do we have to eat South Affrican food as we watch the game, too? South Affrica is getting the same thing out of hosting the games as every other host country; and yes, that includes an increased awareness of their culture and history.
1) Just because MAD is not applicable to today's circumstances, does not make it a naive theory. It did exactly its job in the circumstances for which it was created.
2) If you write off Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea as "stupid", then you are a fool. Yes, their motivations differ from yours - enough so that you clearly do not understand them. However, you're claim that they're suicidal needs some support.
When a group and/or point of view is so irrefutably evil, report the facts as they are and everyone observing the facts will see that they are evil. If you instead take the road you're advocating, and insist that all anyone get to see about them is your emotional reaction, then you're insisting that everyone else "take your word for it" that they are evil. That will only breed sympathy for them.
There is a difference between neutral reporting and neutral action. Civilization depends on seeing that distinction, so it's a shame people like you don't.
I'm not convinced that you need someone who doesn't have a personal position on a topic. It's true that some people have a problem putting their bias aside to write an impartial article, but this is not true of everyone. The people most likely to abuse that situation by suppressing the opposing view, are the ones who fear the opposing view because when you get right down to it they aren't so secure in their own view.
I'm also not convinced that you need an expert on a topic to evaluate which perspectives are worthy of inclusion. An encyclopeida is a secondary source; you always have to know who's claiming this-or-that before you can include it. So all you need is someone who can rate the significance of the source. Do I have to be an expert on American politics to know that the official Republican and Democratic positions on an issue are more significant than a view that I can only find cited by Bob at the corner bar? Not really.
What makes you think you have to choose one of those two? Or, to put it differently, what part of "neutral" don't you understand?
If I take your account at face value (not being familiar with the incident; would perhaps be nice of you to provide a link, but I know that's asking a lot around here), then here would be some neutral facts:
- The Taliban did (something), killing a 7-year-old boy
- The Taliban say the boy was spying and that they punished him
- Critics of the Taliban say that the punishment was unjust and constitutes an act of murder
Perhaps there are some other facts, such as evidence supporting or refuting each side's claims. Perhaps there aren't. But frankly, if that's your example of a "hard" problem for being neutral, then I'd have to conclude there's no problem and you just don't know what neutral sounds like.
And for every disgruntled consumer that won't buy their system because it carries DRM, would you care to take a guess at how many non-disgruntled consumers are pressed into playing by Sony's rules?
I don't know the number, but I'm willing to wager it's a lot higher than you'd like it to be.
That hardly seems applicable since they're predicting something contrary to the normal cycle.
My knowledge of solar "weather" is too limited to evaluate the reasoning behind this claim - and from what you wrote here, I think yours is, too. I guess the question is: is NASA's?
Ooooookay, let's start by exploring just waht a "foundation" is. The applicable definitions would be:
a : funds given for the permanent support of an institution : endowment; b : an organization or institution established by endowment with provision for future maintenance
(emphasis added)
In other words, a foudnation is precisely an organization that has an endowment of seed money, invests that money, and uses income from such investment to do some sort of work (in this case, charitable work) perpetually. Typically some of the investment income is reinvested in the foundation (rather than 100% of the income going to do work), as this helps ensure perpetual operation and can even cause the foundation's strength to increase over time.
An organization that doesn't invest, but rather does its work directly with the money it takes in from donors or other revenue streams, is not a foundation.
So pointing out that the foundation invests in profitable things and therefoer concluding that it's a tax scam is entirely misguided. If you want to distinguish a charitable foundation from a tax scam, look for an outbound revenue stream into the founders' pockets. If you have evidence of that, then there's something to talk about.
Your first link represents a dillema that every successful investor with a diverse portfolio has to deal with. Your second and fourth links only show that they are good stewards of their seed money. Your third link is such trivially emotional crap that it barely deserves comment.
I'm glad we agree that it's "obvious" you were lying when you said we'd been "doing this for the better part of a century". It's a shame you've decided to try to blame me for being the one to point out you were lying, and to deflect attention to the entirely irrelevant issue of why we're trying more difficult drilling operations.
You think there's never been a spill like this one? Guess that shows how effective media propaganda really is. Go educate yourself.
So... what? Because BP didn't want to lose oil, that means the disaster can't possibly be their fault? You're making some awfully generous assumptions. (And also, you're ignoring that oil companies routinely lose more oil each year than the Deepwater Horizon event is costing them.)
Legal definitions notwithstanding, corporations are not individuals. They do not have a unified will. They do not always act in their own bottom-line interest, because the interests of the decision-makers are not always aligned with the corporation's interests. Even if a corporation were an individual with a single will, you could not assume that they would never weigh the costs, risks, and benefits in a socially responsible manner. Nor could you assume that they would always be correct in their assessments of costs and risks.
The term "evil corporation" is a bit extreme, but then again it was those defending BP who introduced that term into the conversation, not those blaming BP. In any event, the problem isn't that corporations are "evil"; the problem is that the corporate system allows decision-making without regard to moral responsibility by shielding decision-makers from liability; and that, sure enough, fits any rational definition of evil that can ever be attributed to man.
Where to start...
Ok, when you say "we've been doing this for the better part of a cenury", define "doing this". Not all oil operations are equally risky, and I'd like to see a citation to back the claim that we've done deepwater drilling for the better part of a century.
Maybe more importantly, what do you mean "this has never happened before"? There have been many oil spills. Including from blown oil wells. Including in the Gulf of Mexico (1979). Here's a list of a few of them. If that's not enough, if you read the links from the submission you'll see that being neck deep in oil is pretty much the norm for Nigeria.
Oh, and when a company makes a decision to remove a safety mechanism and then suffers exactly the kind of failure that mechanism is meant to prevent, you can't file that under "things go wrong, period". BP took a risk (for reasons unclear - but if you'd like to bet against me, my belief is it had to do with someone's bonus) that they had no right to take; this is, in fact, the "evil corporation's" fault. (And no, the fact that the well might, maybe, eventually have blown out even with the safety fluid in place does not change the fact that it's BP's fault. BP could make that argument if they hadn't removed the drilling fluid.)
Sure. And as long as the conclusion is the same there's no reason to get the facts right, eh?
A speaker or a display work by putting into your environment something that your ears or eyes (respectively) will respond to. This is relatively easy because what your eyes and ears respond to are relatively simple energy waves. I don't think it's likely that an analogous approach will ever be practical for smell because the real-world thing your nose reacts to is understood to be much more complex.
However, another approach might work - bypass the nose and stimulate nerves directly to make the brain "think" it smells what you want it to smell.